Well, well, well. I first commented on this new information under the DeMint blog entry to which I saw someone responded with:
No, things haven't changed since 1995. But, even if they had, you're taking UNVERIFIED information from conversations FIFTEEN YEARS AGO and using that to support your argument. Do you really not see an issue with that??
How about doing your own research and not using things that you hear in conversation as a basis to support your argument. A lot of what you have here, as people have pointed out, seem to be you picking and choosing small facts out of an issue and attacking that instead of the issue as a whole.
Now I understand I am neither a scientist nor an expert on climate change but I did finally get a moment to read the article that prompted my earlier comment. The article, which is not just a random conversation, discussed that the group, the IPCC, has provided data to support man-made climate change is reversing course. Professor Phil Jones stated that no "statistically significant" rise in temperature since 1995 (http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/158214). To cast more doubt on the data, researchers are releasing the fact that many of the weather stations were influenced by local factors instead of global changes. Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics that was invited by the IPCC's panel to review the last report, stated, "We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC's climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialization and data quality problems. These add up to large warming bias: (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece).
Some of the examples the second article illustrated were:
- A weather station located next to a waste incinerator
- Weather station at Rome airport catches hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxing jets
- Weather Station at Manchester airport was built when land was mainly fields but is now surrounded by heat-generating buildings
So, I ask the Anon that posted the above comment, how am I using unverified information or information from 15 years ago? The new data expands skeptic's assertions that climate change is not man-made as progressives want the world to believe. Take this new round of information and combine them with the "climategate" emails and the false belief that Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035 and a good case can be made for a Ponzi scheme. Former lead author on the IPCC, John Christy, said, "The apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development." Now, does this new information eliminate the effects humans have on the climate; I am not sure. What it does say, at least to me, is we need to look further into real effects of climate change before we infuse our society with higher taxes, increased fuel costs, and the elimination of our freedoms.
Okay, perhaps I am over stating the issue. So I pose these questions: When will progressives open up their minds to the thought that climate change may just be that? Or is this new information just another aberration in conservative thought that man's effect on the climate has been over exaggerated?
First, this is a different anon that you try to call out. I think you might want to go back and read the comments again and find a stable to park your high horse. I'm pretty sure that the comment was made regarding the conversations you had 15 years ago with military members who you said had kids to get more money from Uncle Sam and that is why the military "incentive" should go away. That these members had several kids and that you didn't know if things had changed in 15 years. He took issue, I believe, with conversations from 15 years ago being your source.
ReplyDeleteI'm not even sure how you made the jump to the climate debate since 1995 or 15 years were not mentioned in connection with climate change.
I hope others take a look and come to their own conclusion, or the other anon respond as well.
As far as your statement about those military members having more kids to get more money, I think it goes more to their intelligence than the "incentive" itself. You have to admit, that any tax credit or deduction is a fraction of the cost to support a child. Let's just say, it seems like less than an ideal argument against the credits.
Please try to read the comments again taking emotion out of it and whatever belief you had of being attacked.
Peace out
Oh, and let's lay out a bit more of the article: "Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the chapter of the IPCC report that deals with the observed temperature changes, said he accepted there were problems with the global thermometer record but these had been accounted for in the final report.
ReplyDelete“It’s not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming,” he said. “We also have physical changes like the fact that sea levels have risen around five inches since 1972, the Arctic icecap has declined by 40% and snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined.”
The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts has recently issued a new set of global temperature readings covering the past 30 years, with thermometer readings augmented by satellite data.
Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought.”"
I'm not saying this is conclusive either way, but if you want us to open our minds, give us both sides that were presented.
Okay, I can see where it may refer to the military conversation. This is where having everyone post as Anon can blend the conversation. Either way, it does not take away from the conversation about the turn about on the data used to promote man-made global warming. I find it more interesting on the locations of the weather stations because we all have heard of the "city affect".
ReplyDeleteTell people in Washington, Pennslyvania, and the Midwest of a decline in snow fall. Check that, ask any of the other states as it was reported that all 50 states had snow in it.
ReplyDeleteCan we really get a big picture view by taking readings in the last 30 years? I agree that both sides of the arguement needs presentation. I just find it interesting that the foremost group of experts, IPCC, has proven to be shaking at best. Not only that but they admitt that the weather stations used have seen physical changes in their surroundings that can add a warming bias.
The arguement is not neccesarily about warming trends, more has to do with the cause. Also, there is a report that states that Artic Icecaps have declined in the summer but come back more in the winter. Again, notice that we hear very little about global warming from Al Gore and others during the winter time when the icecaps are reforming. Case in point the Himalayans Glaciers....
Please also let us know that the daily express is a conservative paper with a rather substantial history of losing libel cases.
ReplyDeleteAnon..I do not know the history of Daily Express nor did I dig into their media slant. What I do know is that what they reported here was broadcasted on British TV so I do not see a libel case coming forth here. I do find it interesting that the mass media in the states, including Fox, has not picked up on this new story line. Talk radio has.
ReplyDeleteWho said anything about decline in snow? Just as you say 30 years of readings doesn't provide a big picture, neither does snow in one area for one year. Yet the Republicans seem to be slamming that down everyone's throat. And in the same manner, let's not take a few reports from those opposed to climate change and conclude that everything is a ponsy scheme.
ReplyDeleteAnd they, the IPCC, said that those changes were accounted for.
The Anon above quoted Kevin Trenberth, I think, with "the Arctic icecap has declined by 40% and snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined" Former Sen. Kennedy also made a statement last year about the lack of snow in the Washington D.C. area as a sign of global warming. Now, the snow fall that the D.C. area experienced was nothing seen since 1885. That to me translate that Mother Earth has a cycle that is not influenced, to the point that progressives want us to believe, by man.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct that the IPCC stated that the changes and the aberrations are accounted for. They also admitted that the "hockey stick" graph that draws the conclusion of man's effect on climate change is not accurate because of the geographic affects on the weather stations. Which is even more reason why we need to open the debate up and really look at how we are collecting data.
I do not agree with conservatives whole heartedly that use individual weather events to cast immediate doubt in manmade climate change. I do see where a trend is developing that the veil is being lifted and the truth is coming more clear that Mother Earth has a cycle that we have very little influence on.
What is absence from our conversation is the change in refraction angles of the poles that we are and will experience over the next five years. Also, little coverage is given to sun spot activity change. Notice we do not hear a lot about our ozone layer anymore?
All I am saying is before we slam taxes down our throats, restrict our freedoms, and mothball fossil fuel that we make sure we know what we are talking about. Is that so wrong to do?
I'm the Anon that posted that. And this is a PERFECT example of how you're using random pieces of information to get your point across. You didn't use the comment in the context it was used in to try to drive home a point.
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty basic, you're the one who brought up 1995 (15 years ago since you're having trouble understanding), how could you even think it applies to anything other than the military pay issue?? Where else in any of your "facts" did you bring up 1995?
Nowhere. So you took my quote and used it in a completely different context to try to support your argument. Now you can sit there and simply say that you didn't undertand the context, or you took it the wrong way, but do you think that absolves you of using the quote wrong to try to prove your point? If anything it should make you take a look at yourself to see how and why you're using the information you get, and if maybe, just maybe, you're the one that's spouting nonsense.
Can't wait to see how you try to defend yourself on this one.
I took the 15 year reference and 1995 to the fact that professor Jones stating that the climate had not warmed since 1995 and you telling me to do research. That is why I took the angle I did.
ReplyDeleteAt least I can admit it. Yet I do not see progressives opening up as the data used is being tainted. Even when the same scientist feelu admitt errors.
Ardent Viper, you're constantly talking out of both sides of your mouth. One minute you suggest that someone should "tell people in Washington, Pennslyvania, and the Midwest of a decline in snow fall". The next minute you say that you "do not agree with conservatives whole heartedly that use individual weather events to cast immediate doubt in manmade climate change."
ReplyDeleteOr perhaps it was this comment: "The article, which is not just a random conversation, discussed that the group, the IPCC, has provided data to support man-made climate change is reversing course. Professor Phil Jones stated that no "statistically significant" rise in temperature since 1995." You then followed up with this comment: "Can we really get a big picture view by taking readings in the last 30 years?"
Really though, I'd like you to answer one question. Did you honestly expect that climate change, the manmade kind, would result in the complete absence of winter or that polar icecaps would not reform to a certain extent in winter?
To my knowledge, no scientist has ever said that the earth wouldn't ever experience cold weather again. Just like an anonymous poster before me indicated, the changes we're talking about are very small (sea level rise of 5" since 1972 or a 2-3 degree change in the average temperature on earth)) but can have disastrous effects.
Why is it that you demand a complete report on a source's funding, associations, slant and history (see questions re the journal Nature) from commenters but then fail to do the same for your sources (see The Daily Express)? Not only is The Daily Express a conservative news outlet, most people regard it as a tabloid.
ReplyDeleteThe word tabloid does not carry the same negative stigma in Britian as it does in the United States. So that may be the reason why the Ardent Viper does not share your opinion on the outlet used.
ReplyDeleteAnon..
ReplyDeleteI do not see that I am talking out both sides of my mouth; rather I see it as understanding the issue. Talking trough the issue. If through talking about the issue elements of my original opinion, or others, change it could be due to various reasons.
I am doing my best to present differing sides of the dicussion as well. I do admit that I am a skeptic when it comes to the degree to which man has changed the climate of Earth. I am not saying that we do not have an affect because how can one live in their environment and have no affect?
Nor do I or have I asserted that icecap reformation or influx of snow are silver bullets to disproving man's affect on climate change. I am not sure how long you have read my blog or how well we know each other but the dirty little secret is that I will take stances, at times, that I do no agree with in an attempt to have a discussion on the topic.
As far has the last 30 years of data, Professor Jones orignal data and "hockey stick" graph has been used by progressives to push manmand climate change. Now, Professor Jones is admitting that we have not warmed since 1995 and that temperature readings from Medevil times were actually warming. My question is which data do we look to?
Some argue that we are in or on the steps of a mini-ice age. From what I recall from science class, the Earth has heated up and cooled for millions of years before humans evolved or were created. So if that is the case, how can we contend that the changes we have seen in the last 150 years are solely contributed to increase fossil fuel burning, driving the SUV, and using the wrong type of light bulb?
My friend Kevin posted this on Facebook. Kevin has posted here in the past as well as Kevin too. I told him that I was bringing this over because he makes some really great points and I think it can help us in our dicussion. I am eager to hear what others have to say too.
ReplyDeleteOk, first off, why is this a political discussion? Second, if 75% of scientists say it's happening and you can point to 5% that say things or do things that are questionable does that make the other 70% wrong? Third, does the use of a few glaring example such as you bullet pointed above discount the overall results?
I'm not saying your wrong, but in order to take a skeptical view of this you must do a few things first IMO.
First - remove politics from the discussion. Politics is not a discussion of rationality, logic or evidence. It is based upon strategy and tactics and the use of mis-information in order to move your pawn 1 space forward in the hopes of a check-mate situation.... See More
Second - Take the preponderance of evidence on both sides and make your own conclusions. Do some simple math. Perhaps read peer-reviewed studies on both sides of the spectrum. But to cite "climategate" as an example of how this isn't happening is no different than to say "Bill Clinton had sex with an intern which was bad, therefore all presidential policy during his terms was bad". It's an absurd argument.
Third, don't try to parse apart information to find the one or two outliers that exist in the data. I can easily find evidence of the one person who survived a motorcycle accident without a helmet when he crashed at 100mph. That doesn't mean that riding a motorcycle without a helmet is safe or a good idea. (Although it does make it a more enjoyable experience)
My point Chris is that you seem to color EVERY discussion you have with politics. Take a step back and look with eyes that aren't colored by a political lens before you make decisions. Don't get your information from right/left wing blogs, journalists, etc.
And since I know I'm going to take crap because I sound like I'm a pro-global warming person I'm not. I do however believe that something is happening and it's worthwhile to have a real and reasonable discussion about it without coloring that discussion with your political opinions in a sad and cynical attempt to "win points".
I see someone else addressed the tabloid aspect but let me set something else straight. I am not using commentary made by the Daily Express nor am I using any conclusions they made; rather I am taking citations from their site based on facts they are reporting.
ReplyDeleteThat is where the difference lies and as the Anon poster pointed out the word tabloid is not thought as the same as Americans think of it. The reason I asked about Nature was it is good to learn who is funding the research if one is going to quote the research and summary from a site. That is not what I am doing when I reference the Daily Express or a number of my citations. Merely I am just reference where I pulled the quote from to avoid plagarism. Does that make sense?
Viper,
ReplyDeleteI am one of the original Anon's on the issue. I agree with Kevin whole-heartedly about the issue of taking politics out of the equation, however, I realize from this blogs standpoint that it is very tough to do.
I can easily look at things through a scientists lens and bias myself a bit towards their thinking. Thats because I have a scientific background. I guessing that you don't and have never actually conducted any scientific reasearch. You are obviously not alone, and I think that many of the errors in the research certainly didn't help trying to persuade you and the rest of the world to go along with it.
So, the political angle really is all that you have to go on. I certainly not saying that you are out to disprove anybody, nor that you take a consverative slant. I, for one, totally agree that a portion of the work that was done on the second IPCC research was sloppy, misrepresented, and somewhat exaggerated. However, a majority of it was not. You really don't hear about that though. So does this lead you to believe that the political rancor and partisanship going on fuels a lot of this debate? I certainly do.
Your main argument for the proving the exaggeration of global warming really then comes from the fear of how it might funnel down to our everyday lives. Perhaps higher taxes, higher utility bills, more corporate regulation. These are worthwhile fears, no doubt. But the issue is in front of us so why can't we come together and try to find a working solution? Don't you think that this is better than trying to disprove this science or calling it a hoax all together?
Anon...
ReplyDeleteI have been looking for the debate to transform from a political argument to one based on science. We need to provide a definitive conclusion to climate change as to which factors contribute the most and which factors, if changed, will make a positive effect on the environment.
The Biomass paper I previously cited is very telling and something I think we need to explore on. The fact that mass deforestation has led to the stripping away of critical biomass to absorb CO2 in the air should be a priority to rectify. As the Biomass paper stated, oceans and waterways that had proper levels of biomass CO2 was absorbed and where biomass lacked or was non-existent the CO2 levels were higher.
My issue is that we have been guilted into believing the concept of manmade global warming based on IPCC data that has proven, as you admit, to be flawed. Now, I will agree with you and do acknowledge that parts of the data is accurate. What the IPCC now needs to determine is which data is not tainted and how they regain the confidence in that data?
I earned my Green Belt in Six Sigma. While I recognize it is not a scientific certification, it does incorporate investigative techniques to determine the root causes of things. Six Sigma is a disicpline that requires a high degree of analytics which I presume is similar to scientific study, correct?
To move forward on the discussion of climate change, I think we need to include a big picture concept and put aside political and social agenda's. We need to explore the affects of sun spot activity, our proximity to the sun, the changes in Earth's orbital path, the changes in biomass, the changes in refraction angles of the poles, and increases in population. What do you think?
I'll have to admit, I had to go to Wikipedia to get what Six Sigma was. Although I have heard of it, I do not have an MBA and have no experience in management techniques. However, to say "it does incorporate investigative techniques to determine the root causes of things", no matter how broad based a statement that may be, is somewhat accurate.
ReplyDeleteOne "apples to oranges" argument, however, is that scientific research works primarily as a data collection tool. Most scientists who interpret that data must and always do formulate hypotheses that the data is wrong, before being proved right. I hope that helps a little.
Your arguments that discuss the sun spots, biomass, and the like probably were studied to great effect. Nobody has ever said that they don't come into play in some fashion or another. I think they should be proven as interesting factoids on our way to the total understanding of how climate is changing. But your right about moving the topic forward. I wish I knew more about the big picture. It is hard to get a non-biased study.
Anon..in Six Sigma we do formulate a hypothesis when performing the investigative aspect of the quality management tool.
ReplyDeleteThere is a method to my madness. Each of these smaller pieces fit someplace within the puzzle, the toughest part is to recognize the small pieces within the greater puzzle. Especially when the puzzle is not clearly defined or when the puzzle is rigidly believed to be.
I like how you still haven't updated your snarky opening to this post to say how you were completely wrong and used that quote out of context.
ReplyDeleteI have acknowledged that I took the nature of the anonymous post as meaning something different than how it was intended. Did not realize more was required or that it took away from the conversation.
ReplyDelete